Then why not limit the amount or the rate of return? For example, an A team can invest nothing, but a B team can invest 1 million, C team 2 million, ..., H team unlimited?

Another example would be a new manager can earn 10%, a manager with 1 season (63 to 125 days) of experience gets 8%, 3 seasons = 5%, 4 seasons = 2%, a manager with over 5 seasons is ineligible. That might be an even better proposal than the one above, as it would exclude those managers who lose matches on purpose to stay in lower divisions.

This would give new players an additional way to make money, and it is certainly a lot more realistic than a team that generates income by buying and selling 100 players/season.

It makes sense that if there’s a loan there are savings. On pure economic terms, the interest should be lower than that charged on a loan. Durations and sizes can be the same.

At the moment, the loan rates are 5% for 18 weeks, 10% for 36 weeks and 15% for 54 weeks, and loan sizes are 500k, 1.5m and 2.5m. The same should apply to savings, with half the interest rates: namely 2.5% for 18 weeks, 5% for 36 and 7.5% for 54.

The advantage is that it makes it more realistic; it makes sense for the game as an economic environment; it is likely to become another marginal way to make money; and it’s a solution for those believing they can’t make a higher return on the slave-trade (I beg to differ, but people are allowed to their own opinions). It will not make rich managers much richer because the maximum you can make is 187,500 in 54 weeks, which is a pretty bad return given you can make more than that on one advertising deal that may last 1 day.

SBroccoli wrote:Lol. Well try to explain why savings will increase inflation. I'd really like to see that.

Compare the H-team budget with top A-team budget... Money makes another money, so top teams will have more money and more money means inflation (demand bigger than supply)... Someone who knows economics a little understand...

SBroccoli wrote:Lol. Well try to explain why savings will increase inflation. I'd really like to see that.

Compare the H-team budget with top A-team budget... Money makes another money, so top teams will have more money and more money means inflation (demand bigger than supply)... Someone who knows economics a little understand...

You hit the head on the nail, my friend. In economic theory savings actually decrease inflation if the interest is under the average market growth.

Sorry to trick you into that answer, but it's not so simple as to look at the interest and just name it inflation.

If the interest on savings is lower than the average gearing of money out there, inflation will go down! It's exactly the same with bonds, but it depends on the interest rate ofc.

The major source of inflation in this game, btw, as far as I can see are: ticket income, TV-rights and new clubs (transfers do not generate inflation - they are just redistribution of money). All these induct a fair amount of money into the SP-economy and there are only a few exits. Mainly like player wages and retired players. Upgrades also do a little, but that's a one-time effect.

I don't know how Sjarel handles this part of the game. I suspect it's been build up from the manager perspective and with no particular regard to the games' global economy.

The inflation is self-regulating to some extend (meaning it will not skyrocket over time) if the player turn-over is relatively constant. But the level of inflation may affect different kinds of players differently. The higher the inflation, the bigger an insider-outsider problem you get.

So in fact it might pay for Sjarel to look into ways to reduce inflation if he wants to attract and keep new players, which is what I understand he wants.

SBroccoli wrote:
You hit the head on the nail, my friend. In economic theory savings actually decrease inflation if the interest is under the average market growth.

In theory that is correct and now I can see what you mean. However, you missed an important detail.
This game's economy is different from the natural economy by the fact that it does not rely on an interest system, meaning in truth the interest variable as you regard it is 0. This variable is used differently in the ecuation (because you can loan money with interest, but not borrow) - it is just an expense.
At the moment, savings remain with the player and (s)he may invest the money only when (s)he finds it necessary, but if the money is not invested, it doesn't bring anything.
If you give the possibility to put money in the bank, interest will be as it is in the real world - both a means of earning and an expense. It will be another source of earning and increase inflation.
But, as I said above, with the limitations proposed, the earnings would be so little that this function will be almost decorative and I don't believe it will have a significant influence, especially since most of the players will not put money into the bank, but use it for trading and daily costs.